5 ms·

That's misinterpreting data. We subsidize global pharmas (and medical device companies) based out the of US with the excessive cost we pay as patients. That is

That's misinterpreting data. We subsidize global pharmas (and medical device companies) based out the of US with the excessive cost we pay as patients. That is probably because of their lobbying. Since private health insurance mostly acts as a pass through, they are happy to let the cost curve rise as long as individuals and employers pay the bills. The only place in the US government that controls its formulary is the VA/Tricare and they have remarkable success in managing costs there. Otherwise, you mistakenly believe the government controls these costs. We have incompetent or corrupt private industry, and a major party that is eager to deregulate things further.

beached_whale 4y ago
Insulin is not a subsidized item. It is very old tech and they make a profit in other countries. Its about <=$5/vial to make
- throwaway5752 4y ago
  We - the US consumer, not the US government - subsidize global pharma with the ridiculously high prices we are forced to pay for drugs. That is exactly my point.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    With CHIP[0], Medicare[1] and Medicaid[2] that isn't really true. The US taxpayer foots the bill for the majority of medical costs in the US. If you are a child, elderly or disabled (ie. most of the people with high medical costs) it's very likely that you fall under one of those programs. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Health_Insurance_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Health_Insurance_... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States) [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid
  - oblak 4y ago
    Certain companies making crazy markups is not the same as subsidising the world. Get off your high horse
    - throwaway5752 4y ago
      Let unpack both of your points separate. Last point, first: I don't mind subsidizing the world to a degree. A lot of these are US companies or international pharma with substantial US presence. The US is a phenomenally wealthy country, and a healthy and stable world is in everyone's interest along with being a moral imperative. The balance of whom that is falling on is inequitable for various reasons within the US, though. Back to your first point: this is exactly about companies charging crazy markups. Look at https://costplusdrugs.com/ https://costplusdrugs.com/ for some examples of how bad it is. Now, we all understand that R&D and studies for safety are necessary and expensive, and not every drug succeeds. Every successful drug pays those as amortized costs, it's not simply a matter of manufacturing and raw materials. However, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli was a famous and egregious example vis a vis Daraprim of a common practice. Further, you have increases for non-elastic needs (insulin, epi-pens) that far exceeds increases to increases in manufacturing costs. Then you ones like Solvaldi that are just priced on the max the market will bear: https://www.fiercepharma.com/financials/gilead-prices-hep-c-giant-sovaldi-china-at-one-fifth-u-s-price-report https://www.fiercepharma.com/financials/gilead-prices-hep-c-... ... this is not all about recovering development and testing costs, obviously.
- ensignavenger 4y ago
  This is simply not true- you can purchase this cheap generic insulin from Walmart for not much more than that. However, most people group all sorts of new versions of insulin into a category of drug, and those new versions are definitely not "old tech". I have no idea on what the costs to develop, produce, and distribute these insulins is, or even what is being charged for them. Maybe it is too high, but it is not so simple as a generic 5$ per vial drug.
  - beached_whale 4y ago
    Modern insulin is over 20 years old. There have been some small incremental improvements that help some but they are not what most want to use. Novolog/Novorapid were release in 1999
- briffle 4y ago
  The old versions of insulin are still very cheap. its the much more modern versions that are much better at controlling diabetes, with much less side effects, etc.
  - beached_whale 4y ago
    Modern insulin being over 20 years old
Afforess 4y ago
> Since private health insurance mostly acts as a pass through Citation Needed. Prior Authorizations and other "misfeatures" ensure this private health insurance blocks necessary treatment and captures the "savings" at patient's health and sometimes, their lives, expense. https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/99422 https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/99422
s5300 4y ago
> We subsidize global pharmas (and medical device companies) based out the of US with the excessive cost we pay as patients. Pretty sure this has been forever debunked. Not sure why you’re wanting to be a end-stage capitalism apologist
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
saiya-jin 4y ago
You don't need to subsidize anything. I mean sure, you pay for those ridiculous salaries of all people involved in pharma, insurance, all lobbyists and snake salesmen who push/bribe doctors for over-prescriptions and obviously shareholders. Out of those, doctors are the only ones deserving high salaries, mostly. But they shouldn't come from such a bad incentive. World would be just fine if US healthcare wouldn't be such a bad joke on democracy, freedom and all other things that seem to win US elections but actually matter little where they should.
- throwaway5752 4y ago
  Drug and device marketing and sales really ought to be illegal. Kickbacks to physicians and administrators should be limited in the same way they would be for bribes to government officials, both on the medical and industry sides.

beached_whale 4y ago

Insulin is not a subsidized item. It is very old tech and they make a profit in other countries. Its about <=$5/vial to make

throwaway5752 4y ago
We - the US consumer, not the US government - subsidize global pharma with the ridiculously high prices we are forced to pay for drugs. That is exactly my point.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  With CHIP[0], Medicare[1] and Medicaid[2] that isn't really true. The US taxpayer foots the bill for the majority of medical costs in the US. If you are a child, elderly or disabled (ie. most of the people with high medical costs) it's very likely that you fall under one of those programs. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Health_Insurance_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Health_Insurance_... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States) [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid
- oblak 4y ago
  Certain companies making crazy markups is not the same as subsidising the world. Get off your high horse
  - throwaway5752 4y ago
    Let unpack both of your points separate. Last point, first: I don't mind subsidizing the world to a degree. A lot of these are US companies or international pharma with substantial US presence. The US is a phenomenally wealthy country, and a healthy and stable world is in everyone's interest along with being a moral imperative. The balance of whom that is falling on is inequitable for various reasons within the US, though. Back to your first point: this is exactly about companies charging crazy markups. Look at https://costplusdrugs.com/ https://costplusdrugs.com/ for some examples of how bad it is. Now, we all understand that R&D and studies for safety are necessary and expensive, and not every drug succeeds. Every successful drug pays those as amortized costs, it's not simply a matter of manufacturing and raw materials. However, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli was a famous and egregious example vis a vis Daraprim of a common practice. Further, you have increases for non-elastic needs (insulin, epi-pens) that far exceeds increases to increases in manufacturing costs. Then you ones like Solvaldi that are just priced on the max the market will bear: https://www.fiercepharma.com/financials/gilead-prices-hep-c-giant-sovaldi-china-at-one-fifth-u-s-price-report https://www.fiercepharma.com/financials/gilead-prices-hep-c-... ... this is not all about recovering development and testing costs, obviously.
ensignavenger 4y ago
This is simply not true- you can purchase this cheap generic insulin from Walmart for not much more than that. However, most people group all sorts of new versions of insulin into a category of drug, and those new versions are definitely not "old tech". I have no idea on what the costs to develop, produce, and distribute these insulins is, or even what is being charged for them. Maybe it is too high, but it is not so simple as a generic 5$ per vial drug.
- beached_whale 4y ago
  Modern insulin is over 20 years old. There have been some small incremental improvements that help some but they are not what most want to use. Novolog/Novorapid were release in 1999
briffle 4y ago
The old versions of insulin are still very cheap. its the much more modern versions that are much better at controlling diabetes, with much less side effects, etc.
- beached_whale 4y ago
  Modern insulin being over 20 years old

Afforess 4y ago

> Since private health insurance mostly acts as a pass through Citation Needed. Prior Authorizations and other "misfeatures" ensure this private health insurance blocks necessary treatment and captures the "savings" at patient's health and sometimes, their lives, expense. https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/99422 https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/99422

s5300 4y ago

> We subsidize global pharmas (and medical device companies) based out the of US with the excessive cost we pay as patients. Pretty sure this has been forever debunked. Not sure why you’re wanting to be a end-stage capitalism apologist

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

saiya-jin 4y ago

You don't need to subsidize anything. I mean sure, you pay for those ridiculous salaries of all people involved in pharma, insurance, all lobbyists and snake salesmen who push/bribe doctors for over-prescriptions and obviously shareholders. Out of those, doctors are the only ones deserving high salaries, mostly. But they shouldn't come from such a bad incentive. World would be just fine if US healthcare wouldn't be such a bad joke on democracy, freedom and all other things that seem to win US elections but actually matter little where they should.

throwaway5752 4y ago
Drug and device marketing and sales really ought to be illegal. Kickbacks to physicians and administrators should be limited in the same way they would be for bribes to government officials, both on the medical and industry sides.